wrote in message
news:8b776d3a-a603-4e8e-bcdb-d6ce48323fa7@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>A QUESTION OF *CHECKS AND BALANCES*
>
> ----------
>
> The matter of libel has always presented a dilemma to lawmakers who
> wish to move in the direction of a sane and just society.
>
> On the one hand people deserve protection from false allegations. On
> the other hand, people deserve the right to expose injustices by
> 'naming names.'
>
> Public policy, fairness, the 'reasonable man' concept, must come into
> play to strike a balance in the way the justice system deals with
> issues of libel for the overall good of society.
The reasonable man, yes. Not the ignorant .wit, nor the loony with an
obsession.
>
> I've already stated at some length
I must have missed it.
> my argument that the police are a
> special case when it comes to allegations that a citizen has been
> wrongly convicted, which automatically implies that those mainly
> responsible for the conviction are either incompetent or corrupt.
Rubbish, piffle and tripe.
Allegations that a citizen has been wrongly convicted are made every day,
usually with more skill and expertise than you could ever hope to achieve.
There is no such automatic implication of incompetence or corruption.
>
> The Gregg v. O'Gara judgment is taking us into very dangerous
> territory.
It seems a very sensible judgment, taking us through extremely familiar and
sensible territory.
>Its effect is to make us afraid to expose and fight
> miscarriages of justice in the future
Us? No, not "us". Its effect is to make the loony obsessives afraid to use
the courts as their playground to make ludicrous and outrageous allegations
about people who deserve better.
Waffle snipped.
>
> The case of Gregg v. O'Gara has highlighted this dilemma for
> lawmakers. So far it is taking us into dangerous territory. However,
> it's early days still, and if the final appeal hearing at Strasbourg
> recognizes the dilemma stated here, and rules accordingly, then all
> will be well that ends well.
There will be no final appeal hearing at Strasbourg. There will be one
abortive appeal to the Court of Appeal, which will be struck out or
dismissed. End of story.
|